When Studying Affective Responses to Exercise, the Definition of “Intensity” Must Reference Homeostatic Perturbations: A Retort to Vollaard et al.

Abstract

In articles on the methodology of studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training, we noted that, occasionally, exercise conditions described as involving “high” intensity exhibited heart rates that were only as high as, or even lower than, heart rates recorded during comparator conditions described as being of “moderate” intensity. Drs. Vollaard, Metcalfe, Kinghorn, Jung, and Little suggest instead that exercise intensity in high-intensity interval-training studies can be defined in terms of percentages of peak workload. Although we maintain that defining exercise intensity in terms of percentages of maximal heart rate is a suboptimal way to quantify the degree of homeostatic perturbations in response to exercise, we are unconvinced that definitions of intensity relying solely on workload are appropriate for studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to exercise. The reason is that affect is theorized to have evolved to relay information about homeostatic perturbations to consciousness.